Are you thinking of maunually renaming the tar, rpm, and debs, replacingaccumulo-assemble w/ accumulo, when these are pushed out to mirrors? Forthe tar this would require untar, rename, tar and recomputing the sigs andhashes.On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Are you thinking of maunually renaming the tar, rpm, and debs, replacing> accumulo-assemble w/ accumulo, when these are pushed out to mirrors? For> the tar this would require untar, rename, tar and recomputing the sigs and> hashes.

I was thinking about renaming the RPM and DEBs to conform to theirrespective naming conventions, but I see no reason to change thetarball names, or contents. No recalculations of sigs or hashes wouldbe necessary for just a filename change.

If there is an artifact that should be built in a different way, witha different naming convention, please let me know, and I'll make Mavendo it (though I think the docs current specify the names as they areright now).

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Are you thinking of maunually renaming the tar, rpm, and debs, replacing> > accumulo-assemble w/ accumulo, when these are pushed out to mirrors? For> > the tar this would require untar, rename, tar and recomputing the sigs> and> > hashes.>> I was thinking about renaming the RPM and DEBs to conform to their> respective naming conventions, but I see no reason to change the> tarball names, or contents. No recalculations of sigs or hashes would> be necessary for just a filename change.>When I untar accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz and end up with a dirnamed accumulo-assemble-1.5.0, I find that really screwy. I understand howthis came to be. But the name does not make sense from the perspective ofan outsider. I would be happy reroll this tar ball with a dir nameof accumulo-1.5.0. That would change the tars contents and requireresigning. I can do this, post it, and we can include that in the vote.

>> When I untar accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz and end up with a dir> named accumulo-assemble-1.5.0, I find that really screwy. I understand how> this came to be. But the name does not make sense from the perspective of> an outsider. I would be happy reroll this tar ball with a dir name> of accumulo-1.5.0.>I agree. It would be nice (and consistent) to have the tarballs named asfollows:

accumulo-1.5.0-dist.tar.gzaccumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz

These would have a top level directory of: accumulo-1.5.0

Happy to help and update the maven configuration to do this, butChristopher, I suspect you can pull this off easily.

In order to achieve -src.tar.gz, I'd have to override thesource-release assembly that is an approved convention for creating anofficial source-release tarball. I'm not comfortable overriding theseconventions, which are defined in the Apache parent pom. It is simpleto do, but I would strongly advise against it.

Naming the tarball -dist.tar.gz means having a "dist" classifier onthe Maven artifact. Maven conventions establish "bin" as the standardclassifier for a binary assembly (it's one of the pre-definedassemblies in the assembly plugin). I'm more comfortable calling it-bin, because -dist is ambiguous (a distribution of what? allartifacts are a distribution of something, after all). When we usemaven to stage artifacts (as documentedhttp://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html), Mavenautomatically names the artifacts, and so I'm not sure I can avoid the"-assemble" part in the name of the binary release tarball (at leastin the filename; the base directory can be adjusted), so long as theassemble module builds this artifact (this artifact used to be builtin the parent POM, but that creates cycles in the dependency graph). Irecently committed a change, based on Keith's feedback above(ACCUMULO-1404), to make the base directory for the binary assemblytarball "accumulo-<version>" again. Also in that change, I changed theclassifier to be "binary-release" to make it more explicit, so thefilename will now be "accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-binary-release.tar.gz".

We can always rename the accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-binary-release.tar.gzor the official source-release.tar.gz to whatever filename we wantwhen we publish on the website and in the mirrors. But this might addconfusion because people won't understand their relationship to theartifacts in Maven.

All this is additionally complicated with the requirement to publishhadoop2-compatible binaries (at least the jars), (ACCUMULO-1402) andthese need to have their own classifiers to distinguish them from theother artifacts. Every additional artifact, with a new classifier,though, gets further and further away from the Maven convention of"one artifact per module".

So,

I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because Idon't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*source release. However, there may be more to be done with thebinary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what ispublished in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) notholding up the release.

--Christopher L Tubbs IIhttp://gravatar.com/ctubbsiiOn Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>>> When I untar accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz and end up with a dir>> named accumulo-assemble-1.5.0, I find that really screwy. I understand how>> this came to be. But the name does not make sense from the perspective of>> an outsider. I would be happy reroll this tar ball with a dir name of>> accumulo-1.5.0.>>>> I agree. It would be nice (and consistent) to have the tarballs named as> follows:>> accumulo-1.5.0-dist.tar.gz> accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz>> These would have a top level directory of: accumulo-1.5.0>> Happy to help and update the maven configuration to do this, but> Christopher, I suspect you can pull this off easily.

It hasn't been explicitly said, so I'll say it now. RC2 hasfailed-to-pass. At the very least, ACCUMULO-1404 needs to be finished,and there have been other concerns about outstanding documentationtickets, and filenames that need to be addressed first. ACCUMULO-1402is on the list-wish for 1.5.0 also, but does not appear to be ablocker.

--Christopher L Tubbs IIhttp://gravatar.com/ctubbsiiOn Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> In order to achieve -src.tar.gz, I'd have to override the> source-release assembly that is an approved convention for creating an> official source-release tarball. I'm not comfortable overriding these> conventions, which are defined in the Apache parent pom. It is simple> to do, but I would strongly advise against it.>> Naming the tarball -dist.tar.gz means having a "dist" classifier on> the Maven artifact. Maven conventions establish "bin" as the standard> classifier for a binary assembly (it's one of the pre-defined> assemblies in the assembly plugin). I'm more comfortable calling it> -bin, because -dist is ambiguous (a distribution of what? all> artifacts are a distribution of something, after all). When we use> maven to stage artifacts (as documented> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html), Maven> automatically names the artifacts, and so I'm not sure I can avoid the> "-assemble" part in the name of the binary release tarball (at least> in the filename; the base directory can be adjusted), so long as the> assemble module builds this artifact (this artifact used to be built> in the parent POM, but that creates cycles in the dependency graph). I> recently committed a change, based on Keith's feedback above> (ACCUMULO-1404), to make the base directory for the binary assembly> tarball "accumulo-<version>" again. Also in that change, I changed the> classifier to be "binary-release" to make it more explicit, so the> filename will now be "accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-binary-release.tar.gz".>> We can always rename the accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-binary-release.tar.gz> or the official source-release.tar.gz to whatever filename we want> when we publish on the website and in the mirrors. But this might add> confusion because people won't understand their relationship to the> artifacts in Maven.>> All this is additionally complicated with the requirement to publish> hadoop2-compatible binaries (at least the jars), (ACCUMULO-1402) and> these need to have their own classifiers to distinguish them from the> other artifacts. Every additional artifact, with a new classifier,> though, gets further and further away from the Maven convention of> "one artifact per module".>> So,>> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not> holding up the release.>> --> Christopher L Tubbs II> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>>>>>> When I untar accumulo-assemble-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz and end up with a dir>>> named accumulo-assemble-1.5.0, I find that really screwy. I understand how>>> this came to be. But the name does not make sense from the perspective of>>> an outsider. I would be happy reroll this tar ball with a dir name of>>> accumulo-1.5.0.>>>>>>>> I agree. It would be nice (and consistent) to have the tarballs named as>> follows:>>>> accumulo-1.5.0-dist.tar.gz>> accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz>>>> These would have a top level directory of: accumulo-1.5.0

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not> holding up the release.Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.

I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to them),but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarballname considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow thatconvention for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi)-- neither do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.

Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons ofaccumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a commonconvention. The second most common convention seems to be leaving the typeoff the tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulowould be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed thatnaming convention.

Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it isnecessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, butchanging this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter inthe assembly plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must includesomething in the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term'distribution' instead of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is prettylong-winded, isn't it?)

Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and"binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename thefilenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring andpublishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). Thiskeeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for downloadlinks from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention forfilenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filenameconventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.

--Christopher L Tubbs IIhttp://gravatar.com/ctubbsiiOn Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>>> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I>> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*>> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the>> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,>> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)>> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is>> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not>> holding up the release.>>> Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.>> I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to them),> but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball name> considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that convention> for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) -- neither> do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.>> That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use> source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz), so> if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over src.tar.gz,> let's go with it.>> Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons of> accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common convention.> The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the> tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,> binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo would> be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming> convention.>> Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of> 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it is> necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but changing> this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the assembly> plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something in> the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution' instead> of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:> accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty> long-winded, isn't it?)>> So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and> accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz>>>

> Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is:>> Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and> "binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the> filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and> publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This> keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download> links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for> filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename> conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.>> --> Christopher L Tubbs II> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> >> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:> >>> >>> >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I> >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*> >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the> >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,> >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)> >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is> >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not> >> holding up the release.> >> >> > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.> >> > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to> them),> > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball> name> > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that> convention> > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) --> neither> > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.> >> > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use> > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz),> so> > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over> src.tar.gz,> > let's go with it.> >> > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons> of> > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common> convention.> > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the> > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,> > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo> would> > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming> > convention.> >> > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of> > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it> is> > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but> changing> > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the> assembly> > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something> in> > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution'> instead> > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:> > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty> > long-winded, isn't it?)> >> > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and> > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz> >> >> >>

> Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is:>> Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and> "binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the> filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and> publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This> keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download> links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for> filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename> conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.>> --> Christopher L Tubbs II> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>> wrote:> >> >> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>> wrote:> >>> >>> >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I> >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*> >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the> >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,> >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)> >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is> >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not> >> holding up the release.> >> >> > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.> >> > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to> them),> > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball> name> > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that> convention> > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) --> neither> > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.> >> > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use> > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz),> so> > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over> src.tar.gz,> > let's go with it.> >> > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons> of> > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common> convention.> > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the> > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,> > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo> would> > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming> > convention.> >> > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of> > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it> is> > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but> changing> > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the> assembly> > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something> in> > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution'> instead> > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:> > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty> > long-winded, isn't it?)> >> > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and> > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz> >> >> >>

This sounds great. What will the dir names be when the tar files areextracted?> publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This> keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download> links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for> filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename> conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.>> --> Christopher L Tubbs II> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> >> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:> >>> >>> >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I> >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*> >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the> >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,> >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)> >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is> >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not> >> holding up the release.> >> >> > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.> >> > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to> them),> > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball> name> > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that> convention> > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) --> neither> > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.> >> > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use> > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz),> so> > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over> src.tar.gz,> > let's go with it.> >> > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons> of> > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common> convention.> > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the> > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,> > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo> would> > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming> > convention.> >> > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of> > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it> is> > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but> changing> > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the> assembly> > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something> in> > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution'> instead> > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:> > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty> > long-winded, isn't it?)> >> > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and> > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz> >> >> >>

--Christopher L Tubbs IIhttp://gravatar.com/ctubbsiiOn Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>> Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is:>>>> Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and>> "binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the>> filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and>>> This sounds great. What will the dir names be when the tar files are> extracted?>>>>> publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This>> keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download>> links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for>> filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename>> conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.>>>> -->> Christopher L Tubbs II>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii>>>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >>> >>> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > wrote:>> >>>> >>>> >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I>> >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*>> >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the>> >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,>> >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)>> >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is>> >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not>> >> holding up the release.>> >>> >>> > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.>> >>> > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to>> > them),>> > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball>> > name>> > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that>> > convention>> > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) -->> > neither>> > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.>> >>> > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use>> > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz),>> > so>> > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over>> > src.tar.gz,>> > let's go with it.>> >>> > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons>> > of>> > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common>> > convention.>> > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the>> > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,>> > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo>> > would>> > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming>> > convention.>> >>> > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of>> > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it>> > is>> > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but>> > changing>> > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the>> > assembly>> > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something>> > in>> > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution'>> > instead>> > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:>> > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty>> > long-winded, isn't it?)>> >>> > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and>> > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz>> >>> >>> >>>

ACCUMULO-1364 does present a major issue, and while we may not be able toaddress it, we need to thoroughly document it before release.On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Currently there is nothing about it in our docs. There is infinite room forimprovement from here about it. At the very least, a line or two explainingthat data loss for the entire system is possible in the case of powerfailures, so battery backups/automated shutdown is required for datasecurity. I will gladly write it in, but I will not have time until Monday.On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: